No Half Measures: Why Canadian Police Services Must Implement the Philadelphia Model to Improve Handling of Sexual Assault Cases

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

In her hugely important Unfounded
series, which began appearing in early February in the Globe and Mail,
investigative reporter Robyn Doolittle has meticulously documented what front
line sexual assault support workers have known for a long time – that there are
deep systemic issues with the way in which police across Canada investigate
sexual assaults, and that sexual assault statistics, rather than shedding light
on the incidence of sexual assault in Canada, can be used to “disappear” these
assaults from the public record.

The Unfounded series lends considerable new support for what
advocates have been seeking for some time now – the introduction of the
gold-standard Philadelphia model to provide transparency and oversight around
sexual assault investigations and ultimately to address and correct systemic
deficiencies. Not surprisingly, the Philadelphia model also owes its origins to
investigative journalism. It was detailed
reporting in the Philadelphia Inquirer of the unfounding of serious sexual
assault complaints that provided the impetus needed to push the
Philadelphia Police Service to change its approach.

The Philadelphia model involves regular meetings between
police officials and civilian experts – often front-line sexual assault
workers. The team reviews all files classified as “unfounded” as well as other
selected files in order to determine whether the classifications were
appropriate, or whether further investigation is warranted. In the process,
systemic problems are identified and addressed, improving the overall practices
of the force. The model has been a success in Philadelphia and has been adopted
by a growing number of police services in the United States.

Robyn Doolittle’s Unfounded series has attracted attention from
provincial and federal politicians and has led a number of police services to
indicate that they will take steps to improve their handling of sexual assault
complaints. However, we are concerned that these steps may fall short of
implementing the Philadelphia model. At their worst, they may simply be an
exercise in semantics, leading to the reclassification of cases that were once
unfounded as ones for which there is “insufficient evidence”. Further, we are
concerned that privacy law may be asserted as a reason for not moving forward
with the Philadelphia model. While the privacy of women who have been sexually
assaulted is fundamentally important, it is
misleading to suggest that the Philadelphia model would run afoul of privacy
laws. The Philadelphia model treats those involved in case reviews as
consultants and subjects them to the associated rigorous confidentiality
requirements.

Our op-ed,
published today in the Globe and Mail raises our concerns about measures that
fall short of what is clearly the gold standard. The Philadelphia Model is not
a half-measure, it is a game changer – and this is clearly what is needed
across Canada.